|
skasion posted:I can see what they were thinking with the movie interpretation for sure. But Sauron does have a human-like body at least some of the time during LOTR. Gollum, who has met him, describes him as having a four-fingered hand. Gollum seems to describe him as having only one hand too ("he has only four fingers on the Black Hand") though relying too heavily on Gollum's grammar may be a mistake. But it may be a hint that he didn't frankenstein himself a complete body back in Dol Guldur, just enough to work with.
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 11:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 16:23 |
|
|
Runcible Cat posted:But it may be a hint that he didn't frankenstein himself a complete body back in Dol Guldur, just enough to work with. Well, that's an unexpectedly ghastly mental image
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 11:26
|
|
|
Tolkien was of course a massive weeb and knew that the number four having connotations with death in Japan, plus the cultural practices of the Yakuza chopping off fingers, it was certain he'd make a reference at some point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 13:06
|
|
|
Book: Four pages of flowery description about how Sauron's evil presence feels like a dread eye casting around looking for our heroes. Movie: HE'S A BIG GIANT EYE
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 14:18
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:Book: Four pages of flowery description about how Sauron's evil presence feels like a dread eye casting around looking for our heroes. WORLD'S MOST EVIL LIGHTHOUSE
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 14:23
|
|
|
Runcible Cat posted:WORLD'S MOST EVIL LIGHTHOUSE is there a lot of masturbation going on in that one
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 14:26
|
|
|
Runcible Cat posted:Gollum seems to describe him as having only one hand too ("he has only four fingers on the Black Hand") though relying too heavily on Gollum's grammar may be a mistake. But it may be a hint that he didn't frankenstein himself a complete body back in Dol Guldur, just enough to work with. I don't think it means he's missing one entire hand He's missing the finger the ring was on
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 14:30
|
|
|
Lego Batman had a pretty great take on the Sauron Eye fwiw he is literally the whole tower, striding around and zapping people with eye lazers
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 15:00
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:I don't think it means he's missing one entire hand He's missing the finger the ring was on Maybe his other hand is a different colour.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 15:04
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:Lego Batman had a pretty great take on the Sauron Eye fwiw And making the streets of Gotham run with lava. Lego Batman is by far the best ever Batman movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 15:39
|
|
|
didnt tolkien say something like "i picture a man, large but not gigantic in stature" about what sauron was supposed to look like? i always assumed he was just a big scary dude
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 16:27
|
|
|
I think movie sauron when he fights with isildur is a pretty good battle sauron. And the eye on the tower I thought was very strong visually, good visual storytelling even if its a bit on the nose from the text. Conceptually, the terrible will of an ancient malicious being, who is effectively a god, at least slightly omniscient, is difficult to get across in an intuitive way. Particularly with the films being like 12+
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 16:36
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:I don't think it means he's missing one entire hand He's missing the finger the ring was on Yeah but normally you'd phrase that as "only four fingers on one hand", not "four fingers on the hand". "The" black hand seems to imply there's only one. Unless his other one's another colour, like ZomCom says. Relatedly, how do you chop a single finger off a dude's hand? Was he wearing the Ring on his pinky? Was he pointing at Isildur?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 16:38
|
|
|
That leads me to a question regarding Isildur and Sauron. Whenever I read it, it always seemed to me that Isildur defeated Sauron THEN cut off his finger as Sauron lay there defeated. Not the movie version where Isildur discovers the One Neat Trick for defeating the dark lord.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 17:18
|
|
|
Just after Frodo takes the Ring off while on Amon Hen, he feels an arm groping away blindly to the north and west above him. Movie should have had a giant cloud-arm shoving out of Barad-dur and reaching away towards him. (As silly and on the nose as it is I actually think it works fairly well as a visual metaphor for the movies well enough.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 17:40
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:That leads me to a question regarding Isildur and Sauron. Whenever I read it, it always seemed to me that Isildur defeated Sauron THEN cut off his finger as Sauron lay there defeated. Not the movie version where Isildur discovers the One Neat Trick for defeating the dark lord. Isildur did not defeat Sauron in the book. Elendil and Gil-galad did the fighting, everyone involved died or was mortally injured. Then Isildur robbed Sauron’s corpse, or at the very most chopped a finger off a fallen enemy who could not resist him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 17:50
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:Just after Frodo takes the Ring off while on Amon Hen, he feels an arm groping away blindly to the north and west above him. Movie should have had a giant cloud-arm shoving out of Barad-dur and reaching away towards him. (As silly and on the nose as it is I actually think it works fairly well as a visual metaphor for the movies well enough.) Well... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLKk2_2zQwg
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 18:16
|
|
|
skasion posted:Isildur did not defeat Sauron in the book. Elendil and Gil-galad did the fighting, everyone involved died or was mortally injured. Then Isildur robbed Sauron’s corpse, or at the very most chopped a finger off a fallen enemy who could not resist him. OK, I need to reread the books stat, the drat movies have colonised my memory.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 18:18
|
|
|
I believe it's mentioned somewhere that Gil-Galad died by being burned alive. I picture Sauron as a Balrog.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 18:28
|
|
|
You know with the original idea Jackson had for Aragorn to fight Sauron at the Black Gate instead of a troll, I have to wonder. The footage was recycled with a troll digitally superimposed over the Sauron fight and they didn't reshoot Viggo's scenes. Would that mean that the scene where Aragorn is on the ground and he drives his dagger into the troll's foot is an intentional reference to Fingolfin's duel with Morgoth?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 18:32
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:That leads me to a question regarding Isildur and Sauron. Whenever I read it, it always seemed to me that Isildur defeated Sauron THEN cut off his finger as Sauron lay there defeated. Not the movie version where Isildur discovers the One Neat Trick for defeating the dark lord. Given that he reforms his entire body between that battle and LOTR, the missing finger isn't actually a physical injury. One way or another I feel like it has to represent his power he invested in the Ring that is now missing, and his inability to reform it is either a magical/spiritual reflection of that, or psychological because of his keen awareness of its loss.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 18:59
|
|
|
Ultiville posted:Given that he reforms his entire body between that battle and LOTR, the missing finger isn't actually a physical injury. One way or another I feel like it has to represent his power he invested in the Ring that is now missing, and his inability to reform it is either a magical/spiritual reflection of that, or psychological because of his keen awareness of its loss. Sure, it's his Black Hand because it's withered and dead due to the forcible taking of his power in the form of the Ring.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 19:04
|
|
|
Lemniscate Blue posted:Sure, it's his Black Hand because it's withered and dead due to the forcible taking of his power in the form of the Ring. I was just meaning the missing finger but I like this interpretation too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 20:06
|
|
|
At dol-guldur,lost fingat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 20:19
|
|
|
Runcible Cat posted:Yeah but normally you'd phrase that as "only four fingers on one hand", not "four fingers on the hand". "The" black hand seems to imply there's only one. Eh, I always took "the Black Hand" as Gollum says it to be mostly a symbolic thing, like the White Hand for Saruman (who clearly isn't missing any extremities). I never thought him saying "there are only four fingers on the Black Hand" was meant to convey anything about Sauron's literal hand; I thought it was saying "Sauron has been wounded and robbed of his power, but you'd still better not underestimate him".
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 00:16
|
|
|
skasion posted:Isildur did not defeat Sauron in the book. Elendil and Gil-galad did the fighting, everyone involved died or was mortally injured. Then Isildur robbed Sauron’s corpse, or at the very most chopped a finger off a fallen enemy who could not resist him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 00:53
|
|
|
it's really a shame since sauron was aces at the shocker.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 00:58
|
|
|
Funnily enough for all our talk of a spiritual presence the "Eye of Sauron" being a literal eye on top of Barad-Dur like the worlds angriest lighthouse is a retcon from The Two Towers. In the Fellowship movie the Eye actually really is just a spiritual thing just like the books. We see Barad-Dur for a bit in Fellowship and it has no flaming eye atop it, and the only time people "see" it is in the wraith world or as quick flashes in their minds like when Gandalf almost picks it up. In fact even when it is shown it is an all encompassing image that swallows the whole screen and the characters (symbolic!), not a distinct round ball like in the later two films. And it definitely never uses a drat searchlight. The fact they went through all that trouble in Fellowship only to so abruptly change course in Towers seems suspicious of studio meddling or focus group complaints. Like someone complained that you couldn't have the main villain of your 9 hour bajillion dollar movie exist and die entirely off camera.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 02:08
|
|
|
That does make me wonder, though, who in the movies actually physically saw the Eye?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 02:34
|
|
|
galagazombie posted:Funnily enough for all our talk of a spiritual presence the "Eye of Sauron" being a literal eye on top of Barad-Dur like the worlds angriest lighthouse is a retcon from The Two Towers. In the Fellowship movie the Eye actually really is just a spiritual thing just like the books. We see Barad-Dur for a bit in Fellowship and it has no flaming eye atop it, and the only time people "see" it is in the wraith world or as quick flashes in their minds like when Gandalf almost picks it up. In fact even when it is shown it is an all encompassing image that swallows the whole screen and the characters (symbolic!), not a distinct round ball like in the later two films. And it definitely never uses a drat searchlight. The fact they went through all that trouble in Fellowship only to so abruptly change course in Towers seems suspicious of studio meddling or focus group complaints. Like someone complained that you couldn't have the main villain of your 9 hour bajillion dollar movie exist and die entirely off camera. Sauron does have a big death scene though, it’s his only in-flesh appearance. Movies cut it in favor of tower go boom
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 02:41
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:That does make me wonder, though, who in the movies actually physically saw the Eye? Aragorn at the Black Gate. Presumably the host of the West along with him. Also this is just me picking up on things that are otherwise obvious, but man it feels weird when you consider that the major events of The Two Towers to the defeat of Sauron in ROTK take place over the span of a single month. Then you've got all the travel time back to the Shire, sure, but that is a lot of major moments striking one after another in very quick succession. Arc Hammer fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Sep 8, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 02:56
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:That does make me wonder, though, who in the movies actually physically saw the Eye?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 03:54
|
|
|
Imagined posted:The books do describe it as "a lidless eye, robed in flame", the orcs carry the token of the lidless eye, the vision on the seat of seeing, etc. It's not much of a leap from there to "is just a big fiery eye" Gonna do a ww2 movie now where Hitler is swastika-shaped.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 06:18
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Gonna do a ww2 movie now where Hitler is swastika-shaped. I'd be down for a WW2 movie where Stalin is depicted as a giant flaming red star over top of the main spire of St. Basil's Cathedral.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 06:54
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:Does seeing it in the palantir count? No, because that'd surely involve a spiritual representation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 07:11
|
|
|
galagazombie posted:Funnily enough for all our talk of a spiritual presence the "Eye of Sauron" being a literal eye on top of Barad-Dur like the worlds angriest lighthouse is a retcon from The Two Towers. In the Fellowship movie the Eye actually really is just a spiritual thing just like the books. We see Barad-Dur for a bit in Fellowship and it has no flaming eye atop it, and the only time people "see" it is in the wraith world or as quick flashes in their minds like when Gandalf almost picks it up. In fact even when it is shown it is an all encompassing image that swallows the whole screen and the characters (symbolic!), not a distinct round ball like in the later two films. And it definitely never uses a drat searchlight. The fact they went through all that trouble in Fellowship only to so abruptly change course in Towers seems suspicious of studio meddling or focus group complaints. Like someone complained that you couldn't have the main villain of your 9 hour bajillion dollar movie exist and die entirely off camera. I feel like this is actually mentioned in one of the director commentaries. The physical Eye we see in Return was a deliberate contrast to the earlier version in Fellowship, as a way of highlighting how Sauron is continually growing stronger, despite not having the Ring. Though I definitely agree that the roving lighthouse beam looked very silly, like a Starcraft player's attention being pulled around the map or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 08:03
|
|
|
I like that Tolkien left Sauron as this far off and threatening entity who doesn't directly (with the exception of the palantir I guess?) interact with the heroes. It makes him feel pretty menacing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 08:17
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:Eh, I always took "the Black Hand" as Gollum says it to be mostly a symbolic thing, like the White Hand for Saruman (who clearly isn't missing any extremities). I never thought him saying "there are only four fingers on the Black Hand" was meant to convey anything about Sauron's literal hand; I thought it was saying "Sauron has been wounded and robbed of his power, but you'd still better not underestimate him". Could be; Gollum certainly understands figurative language, viz riddles. But talking about the guy who personally tortured you to get info on your Precious seems an odd time to get allusive. But then again, Tolkien.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 10:06
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:didnt tolkien say something like "i picture a man, large but not gigantic in stature" about what sauron was supposed to look like? i always assumed he was just a big scary dude Yep, in one of his letters: JRR Tolkien, Letter 246 posted:'In any case a confrontation of Frodo and Sauron would soon have taken place, if the Ring was intact. Its result was inevitable. Frodo would have been utterly overthrown: crushed to dust, or preserved in torment as a gibbering slave. Sauron would not have feared the Ring! It was his own and under his will. Even from afar he had an effect upon it, to make it work for its return to himself. In his actual presence none but very few of equal stature could have hoped to withhold it from him. Of 'mortals' no one, not even Aragorn. In the contest with the Palantír Aragorn was the rightful owner. Also the contest took place at a distance, and in a tale which allows the incarnation of great spirits in a physical and destructible form their power must be far greater when actually physically present. Sauron should be thought of as very terrible. The form that he took was that of a man of more than human stature, but not gigantic. In his earlier incarnation he was able to veil his power (as Gandalf did) and could appear as a commanding figure of great strength of body and supremely royal demeanour and countenance. There's also this quote from another letter, on the general topic of Sauron's corporeality: JRR Tolkien, Letter 200 posted:It is mythologically supposed that when this shape was 'real', that is a physical actuality in the physical world and not a vision transferred from mind to mind, it took some time to build up. It was then destructible like other physical organisms. ... After the battle with Gilgalad and Elendil, Sauron took a long while to re-build, longer than he had done after the Downfall of Numenor (I suppose because each building-up used up some of the inherent energy of the spirit...) The Silmarillion is also pretty clear that, by the time he was driven out of Dol Guldur around the time of The Hobbit, Sauron had indeed reformed himself: "The Silmarillion, Of The Rings of Power and the Third Age posted:For coming out of the wastes of the East he (Sauron) took up his abode in the south of the forest, and slowly he grew & took shape again. That last is Gandalf speaking to Elrond after returning from Dol Guldur. And given that the term used for Sauron's defeat at Dol Guldur is pretty much always "driven out" rather than "vanquished" or "destroyed," I don't think we can take it as read that Gandalf, Saruman, et al destroyed his corporeal form in the time between The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, and in any event the quote from Letter 246 is pretty clearly saying Sauron had a physical form when Aragorn challenged him in the palantír.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 11:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 16:23 |
|
|
I would assume Sauron could take shape faster if he had the ring available as well. Without it, I'd assume his return is a lot more gradual (though still inevitable).
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 15:44
|
|